Many
people may wonder what the point of this is. Most directly it
is one of ethics. Having appreciated just how many fundamental
faults there are in Relativity I could have walked away and
continued writing financial software. I could have laughed up
my sleeve at Astrophysics for the rest of my life. But it is
the Soul of science itself which is at stake. And science is
close to the spirit of this society.

But
why has the error of Relativity persisted? There are potentially
many good reasons. Around the time of the foundation of Relativity,
mankind’s understanding of the Universe was striding forward
like never before; and likely it shall never advance at that
rate again either. Bombs were getting incrementally more massive,
and even though it was not clearly understood how to build atomic
weapons, it was becoming pretty obvious where that process was
headed. It thus made sense to confound the state of academic
physics to dissuade as many people as possible from learning
such ideas.

Relativity
seems to have become something like a protective seal over the
potential of science releasing weapons of war on a scale only
vaguely imagined midst the horrors of The Great War. It was
perhaps the brainchild of people driven to paranoia by the notion
that if widely understood, science could potentially make anyone
into a powerful tyrant capable of destroying entire cities with
a small device. Much of that paranoia still exists, even if
passed down from generation to generation unthinkingly –
without even perhaps realizing why it is being done.

It is certainly
not so easy to produce atomic weapons as those ancient custodians
of knowledge imagined. So I believe that this fear is no longer
necessary at all. I do not believe it ever was necessary. But
they could not have known that. And the real danger nowadays
is that academia and the minds of people have been confused
to the point where knowledge systems themselves are breaking
down. The psychological dissonance caused by popular faulty
logic has severely hampered knowledge growth in most disciplines.
Once it is possible to persuade people that illogical ideas
are supposedly true in the department of high and mighty Astrophysics;
then such psychological destruction easily permeates through
all pursuits of understanding. How this happens in detail deserves
entire theses worth of study.

Most
of the claims to the validity of Relativity amount to nothing
more than faulty arguments from authority with a decidedly unhealthy
dose of peer-pressure and group-think. The mathematics can also
look intimidating. But if its core philosophy is expressed properly
then no idea should ever be difficult to comprehend; especially
after reducing it to essential logical principles. (However
some ideas may take considerable time and effort.) I could easily
paste many pages of computer code all over the place if I wanted
to intimidate the physicists and the mathematicians. That method
would baffle almost everybody. But I am trying to make the issue
broadly understood. I am not trying to confuse anybody.

This
is why, the method of logical positivism is so vital. For logical
positivism insists that the reader prove or disprove any theory
for themselves. Science suggests that there is an expert in
a white lab-coat who is going to look at you reproachfully and
sternly and then emotively coerce you into pretending that you
understand something that on thorough inspection – is
illogical. There is no short-cut to thinking for your self.

Since
the discovery of planets beyond Saturn using Newton’s
laws, Astrophysics has been hailed as the benchmark of the scientific
method. Science was elevated as the primary source of knowledge
because Philosophy had for the most part become sophistry. The
very word ‘metaphysics’ had its original
meaning turned around from one of highest understanding into
a euphemism for nonsense. What the scientists largely don’t
appreciate is that this word ‘metaphysics’
entails a broader set than science. Because when you are deciding:
what is and what is not science – then you are doing metaphysics;
whether you like it or not – by definition.

Relativity
itself is mostly sophistry with numbers. How widely has the
institution of science been diluted by such sophistry? If the
very cornerstone of what society regards as genius is so lacking
in logic, then how contaminated is the rest of academia? There
is an old African saying: A fish rots from the head downwards.

There is
an implication for this analysis which has profound consequences
for Psychology. On a personal level, this is the most vital.
If a part of your mind is in a state of sub-conscious dissonance,
then that part of your thinking capacity will be blocked off
from your awareness. Because Relativity is illogical, and so
many people do not realize this, they in affect have allowed
some of their consciousness to be cut-off into a state of closed
dissonance.

At the
moment where they gave up on comprehending Relativity, a piece
of their psychological being became deformed. In the professions
directly associated with these theories, if a person was taught
to bow down and accept Relativity through sheer belligerence,
then that person has become belligerent. If this process was
through meekness, then that type of thinking permeates their
being. Outside of vocations directly associated with Relativity,
people have absorbed a sense of logical inferiority because
subconsciously they know that they could never understand it.
Every time an image of Einstein presents itself to them in the
media, this subconscious process is reinforced.

This is
just how the mind works: Your sub-conscious mind cannot be untrue
or illogical. If your conscious mind rejects truth and logic,
then the subconscious takes a piece of your awareness away from
you. In affect you begin the process of disorganized thinking
which can multiply from mere neuroses into schizotypal traits,
and in extreme cases into morbid psychopathic behavior. I am
not suggesting that if you accept Relativity then you are totally
insane. What I am saying is that insanity is a refusal to accept
truth and logic. And that if you accept Relativity as being
true, that you are at least partly neurotic.

What
needs to be done is to require the stubborn Relativists to go
back and revisit that point in time when they first claimed
to ‘understand Relativity’. They need to re-examine
that state of mind which lead them into such pretense. Was it
fear of others thinking them stupid? Was it some type of embarrassment
that so many of my detractors have tried to cajole me with into
accepting the illogical as if it were logical? These situations
will certainly vary a lot. I have read many accounts of emotionally
intense reactions to those who have tried to disagree with an
idea whose purpose seems to be nothing more than a device to
protect people from themselves. Or is it that humanity is just
illogical, generally speaking?

I
sometimes wonder if there is anybody else out there with extensive
experience in computer programming, philosophy of science and
the psychology of war – as well as having an all-consuming
passion for Astrophysics and Cosmology…

“Psychology?”
I hear the scoffers mutter. “Yes, Psychology”, I
answer: The first and most important tool of anyone who tries
to think about anything.

So if you
have read this far then well done, for this is a thoroughly
mind-bending topic. The logic within the theory is perhaps easier
to comprehend than the consequences for our confidence in society
at large. It has been far simpler for me to deconstruct Relativity
as a false paradigm, than it is to present these findings to
a skeptical public. Subconscious dissonance is a very stubborn
barrier to break through. I am not asking you to have faith
in what I say. I am pointing out that you must have faith in
logic. Physics is not a popularity contest.

The
most difficult part of any intellectual endeavor is to be honest
with yourself about what you truly comprehend. This is a very
subtle art. But if you are angry then your subconscious mind
is giving you a hint that you need to take a step back because
you have missed something. The easiest way to assess this is
to be honest with others.

Perhaps
you are in doubt about my analysis of Relativity and are feeling
a bit annoyed with this article? If so then perhaps just consider
these core scenarios in isolation:

1A:Gravitons would not move beyond
the event horizon if gravity is curved space.

1E:Source energy for graviton-photon
lensing would violate the velocity of light.

2A:
If time stops at the event horizon,
then gravitons would also stop here.

2L:My nose is not a black-hole.

3B:It would be possible to see into
the future if the rate of time itself could be changed.

These
I consider irrefutable. 2F and most of the other scenarios are
also irrefutable but may prove a bit more difficult to appreciate
by non-computer programmers.

But
I really enjoyed 2F the most because it shows how Relativity
tries to place a limit on the velocity of all events in the
universe, but it simply assumes that an object will emit gravitational
waves with the instant foreknowledge of where they will end
up. They are said to move in relation to a body that they must
be formally connected to instantly in some way – and they
thereby violate the limit on the velocity of light as regards
that particular information. This is typical of how easy it
is to not see the subtle logic required in any system until
the rigors of the computer program force such logic out into
the open. All computer programmers should appreciate this particular
point.

Scenario
2A on its own should bring the reader to realize that General
Relativity is incompatible with Black-holes to the point of
total contradiction. After all, if time has stopped at the event
horizon then how can gravitons moving through time get past
this obstacle? Much of the theorizing goes on longer than it
may seem to need to do. But this is in order to try and salvage
as much of Relativity and astrophysics as is possible –
despite the clear computational contradictions.

My
central aim is to have a working theory, not to disprove even
the smallest subset of any theory unless I have no other logical
option. At no point have I yet been forced to disclaim any empirical
data – only the theoretical assumptions as to what the
data actually means have been engaged. Indeed the biggest error
most people make in such assessments is to confuse the empirical
data with the theoretical evaluation of that data. Section 3
of this chapter (Relativity and Time) is a prime example of
that.

But it
should by now be clear that both General Relativity and Special
Relativity have more contradictions than answers within them.
In ethics, the concept of relativity is taken as a contradiction;
in physics, it should be too. Einstein’s Relativity theories
are simply not objective. Newton would dismiss them with contempt,
I am certain.

But it
would be a mistake to abandon everything Einstein claimed. Likewise
it would be a mistake to abandon the marvelous engineering that
gave us the empirical claims to gravitational waves because
those who claimed to discover them believed Einstein’s
false ideas. After all, an observation of a phenomenon is not
the same as the reason for that phenomenon.

Of course,
neither can we take it on faith that those experiments are entirely
valid either. After all, the scientists working with those intrepid
engineers have failed to grasp the illogical implications of
General Relativity. Engineering and science are often worlds
apart from one another. Although few engineers will admit this
openly because it is not seen as good publicity to acknowledge
that trial-and-error is a far more useful method than using
a textbook is. All such theories only came from relentless trial-and-error
anyways.

But certainly,
any experimental attempt to unravel the exact function of the
force of gravity can only be encouraged, regardless of the theoretical
background. It is a very difficult thing to even open up this
line of enquiry, psychologically speaking. I would be horrified
if any of this analysis is ever used to try and thwart such
wonderful attempts at understanding gravity like the LIGO experiments
for example.

When I
set out to write this chapter a year ago, my central aim was
to try and prove whether gravity fluctuations occurred at the
velocity of light or instantaneously – purely from the
basis of just computational logic. I have not as yet succeeded
in doing so entirely.

Just because
I have surely proven General Relativity’s conception of
gravitational waves to be almost totally wrong, does not mean
that I cannot still conceptualize and compute gravity as a good-old-fashioned-force
whose fluctuations ripple at the velocity of light. This seems
entirely computable so long as I disregard most of Relativity,
specifically the graviton.

The notion
of gravity propagating at the velocity of light without the
other Relativistic principles I shall blithely term ‘elastic
chewing gum gravity’. Consider gravity as a piece of elasticized
gum. Two objects when held closely together by the gum are held
strongly. As we pull them apart, the gum stretches and the intensity
of the pull weakens. If one object moves its position then the
consequences of this affect only reach the other object some
time after that initial movement, because the fluctuations in
the gum must move at velocity.

I have
claimed that Sum Theory still upholds the notion from Relativity
that the velocity of light cannot be exceeded. Yet I also strongly
suspect that gravity might propagate instantly. This paradox
will be resolved in Chapter 30 (Sum General Theory). For now,
if we consider that gravity could propagate beyond the velocity
of light, and that some aspects of waveforms might also do this
(from the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments), we are likely
to concede that the velocity of light can in some cases be exceeded.
The exact conditions of how this occurs must still be defined.
But before that is accomplished we must clearly determine what
the velocity of gravity actually is.

Of
course elastic-chewing-gum-gravity is a bit weird because its
strands somehow never get entangled with each other –
so the description of it being ‘gum’ is rather metaphorical.
The point being that the gravity between two objects is itself
an ontological object that stretches. But the total energy-value
of the gravitational ontology is the same regardless of the
distance between the objects it unites. This gravitational ontology
is not the same as the force between the objects – instead
it is the actual energy value of the structure that propagates
that force. To appreciate this, consider a tug-of-war. The rope
is not the same as the force pulling on the rope.

But I still
have no reason to accept this idea is true. I can equally as
easily compute Newtonian-Planck gravity (instant gravity with
quantum time). So it appears I am no closer to knowing the velocity
at which changes in gravity take affect. But! I do believe that
I have laid solid foundations both ontological and epistemological
from which to do this by decimating General Relativity almost
completely.

But before
taking the next step, I wish to return to the possibility of
instantaneous gravity because of the astounding applications
for it. A device could be constructed which altered the movements
of large bodies like asteroids, using them as enormous instantaneous
signaling devices. The sheer scale of such a device seems ridiculous
by 21st century standards. Imagine altering the orbits of the
moons of Jupiter purely to send an encoded message to another
star-system via instantaneous gravity!?

Consider
just how subtle the receiving equipment would need to be to
detect such movement? The gravity of a moon of Jupiter would
surely have a tiny affect on an object several light-years away.
Then consider how many such fluctuations would be required to
send a message in something like Morse code! How much energy
would this device consume? But a few centuries ago much of what
goes on in the world today would have seemed just as unlikely.
If instantaneous gravity is correct then the problem reduces
to one on the scale of the engineering.

At this
point it is hardly prudent to do such scary calculations such
as what size object would be the smallest with which to send
a signal, and how sensitive the measuring device could be. Elastic-chewing-gum-gravity
still must be proven incorrect for this to be a meaningful effort.
But it is not the construction of such a device centuries from
now which motivates me.

Instead
what compels me is the possibility that such devices may already
have been constructed by aliens just a few millennia in advance
of us. The receiving or detecting part of the apparatus seems
at face value to be enormously easier to engineer than inter-planetary
billiards.

SETI (Search
for extra-terrestrial intelligence) has constructed large numbers
of radio telescopes to try and detect radio signals from other
worlds. The difficulty with this is that how do we know which
frequency to search for them on? And how would we know the difference
between an artificial signal and a natural one? Interferences
are surely the worst problem. What if the rates of the bits
of information within the signals are just too finely compacted
for our detection devices? What if they are too far spread out?

The
IGC (Instantaneous Gravity Communicator) has a much narrower
and thus more observable scope of range, and would be far more
useful to advanced extraterrestrial intelligence than electromagnetic
communication. This could be why they are not using primitive
electromagnetic communication methods at all: It is far too
slow to be useful over celestial distances. It may be more worthwhile
to simply send a spaceship than a signal. It may be more discrete
as well.

A more
down-to-Earth implication is that there is a large error in
calculating how asteroids can come close to obliterating life
on Earth. These errors compound with time and the eccentricity
of the orbits. Satellite collision predictions are often out
by margins as large as 10km on a daily scale. Getting gravity
perfect has never been more important.

However,
the holy grail of understanding how gravity works will always
be the possibility of an anti-gravity propulsion system –
or even a gravity-shield of zero gravity. And neither will ever
be achieved without countless failed attempts. Although it must
be said that intuitively speaking, instantaneous gravity would
seem far harder to block or invert than elastic-chewing-gum-gravity.

But even
if gravity does propagate at the velocity of light, I am still
certain that most of the principles within the Theories of Relativity
need to be done away with. But let us not be rid of them completely.
There are still at least three principles within Einstein’s
Relativities that are worth keeping. I may never prove instantaneous
gravity exists, have the IGC constructed, and find E.T. after
all. Anti-gravity may be impossible on a useful scale. Yet,
I may still find something better.

For
I feel that this thesis at least should function as a litmus
test for reason and academic understanding. Not only for the
benefit of that most noble of epistemologies – that which
is higher than science – that method which us philosophers
call ‘logical positivism’; but also as a warning
to the horrendous methodological pitfalls which have sucked
so many people into the intellectual black-hole of Relativity.

But I am
getting ahead of myself. I still have to disprove elastic chewing
gum gravity for these ideas to be viable. I have to confront
the empirical claims that suggest gravitational waves do exist.
So at this point I need to do something which is always a last
resort in theoretical physics. I must further examine the actual
empirical data. Specifically the LIGO experiment called GW150914.

Contrary
to popular belief there is often a vast gap between science
and engineering. So I still believe that there is vital data
in the LIGO experiments of Earth-moving significance –
despite their acceptance of what is clearly an illogical paradigm.
A computational analysis of experiment GW150914 will form the
core of the next chapter with the foundational theoretical framework
being here established. After that I will put the pieces of
Einstein’s puzzle back together again and outline the
principles of Sum General Theory – specifically the inner
structure of how it is that white holes give off energy and
mass. I suspect that at their core might be a process that I
can only call ‘unfusion’ whereby Helium is ripped
apart into Hydrogen.

It
is never enough to prove a theory wrong. We need a theory that
is correct! But the most amazing thing about Cosmology and Astrophysics
is that no theory is ever entirely correct. There shall always
be missing pieces of information. There will never be a ‘theory
of everything’. This is what is so inspiring: That anybody
will always be able to make a fundamental contribution to the
topic.

Why did
nobody ever realize that if time stops at the event horizon,
then gravitational waves would not be able to depart the black-hole?

That
question is surely not hard to ask? Even someone from junior
school could have seen that. The problem is that most people
don’t realize that the most complex logic is just a series
of many very simple steps. All it takes is perseverance…
and faith in logic. The methodological perspective of logical
positivism is an entirely different psychological state to that
which merely memorizes sentences and numbers, regurgitates them,
and then considers such to be ‘understanding’.

When Einstein
was confronted with theoretical quantum mechanics, he notoriously
claimed that ‘God does not play dice with the Universe’.
While that is certainly debatable from many vantage points;
if I could have the chance to say just one thing to Albert it
would be this: